Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board vs M.U.Joseph on 7 March, 2012
Author: K.T.Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/17TH PHALGUNA 1933
CRP.No. 153 of 2008
OP(ELE.) NO.267/1996 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
(ADHOC)-II, ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
---------------------------------
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN(SR.)SC,KSEB
SRI.S.SUJIN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
--------------------------
1. M.U.JOSEPH, S/O.ULAHANNAN,
MARAR'S HOUSE, PLAMUDY P.O.
KOTTAPPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM.
2. MANOJ JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
MARAR'S HOUSE, PLAMUDY P.O.
KOTTAPPADY, KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV.SRI.SAJI.P.JOSEPH
SMT.MINI G
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
I.A.NO.450/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.153/2008
DISMISSED
7/3/2012 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
C.R.P. NO. 153 OF 2008 B
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March, 2012
O R D E R
For drawing Periyar-Trichur 220 KV electric line, the Kerala State Electricity Board cut and removed 579 yielding rubber trees and other yielding and non-yielding trees from the property of the respondents. The Board granted a compensation of `94,298/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Board, the respondents filed O.P.(Ele.) No.267 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge (Adhoc II), Ernakulam, claiming a compensation of `28 lakhs. The Board did not grant compensation for diminution of land value. The respondents claimed diminution of land value at the rate of 50% of the land value for an extent of 2.698 acres. It was contended by the respondents that the land would fetch a price of `5,000/- per cent at the relevant time.
2. Before the court below, the second claimant was examined as PW1 and the assignors of two sale deeds were examined as PWs.2 and 3. No documents were produced on the side of the Electricity Board and no witness was examined on their side. C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 2 ::
3. The court below granted an additional compensation of `18,32,686/- to the respondents for tree cutting. The finding on this aspect is contained in paragraph 9 of the judgment, which reads as follows:
"9. As already stated the mode of calculation of compensation in the Revised Valuation Statement and the details regarding the age, number and market value of the improvements shown therein have not been seriously disputed by the respondent/K.S.E.Board. Exts.A12 to A14 would support the market value of the respective improvements shown in the Revised Valuation Statement (R.V.S. for short). But on going through the said Revised Valuation Statement, I find that the annual net yield arrived at by the petitioners in respect of yielding rubber trees described therein is mistakenly shown as 11 instead of 9.281 (25x9/16). Hence, by adopting correct net yield of the rubber trees as 9.281 (item No.7) in respect of yielding rubber trees in the Revised Valuation Statement, the compensation for one tree would come only to Rs.2877.74 which is rounded to Rs.2878/- instead of Rs.3,410.74 as mistakenly shown in R.V.S. (item No.10). Hence I find that the total compensation for 579 yielding rubber trees would come to Rs.16,66,211/- only as against Rs.19,74,823/- claimed by the petitioners. With regard to the other items of yielding trees shown in C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 3 ::
the said Revised Valuation Statement, I find that the figures arrived at by the petitioners for computing the compensation for the respective crops are correct. Therefore, it is found that the compensation entitled to the petitioners in respect of yielding improvements are as follows:
1 Rubber trees 579 Rs.16,66,211/-
2 Arecanut Trees 1 Rs.2,378/-
3 Jack Trees 4 Rs.22,525/-
4 Mango Trees 3 Rs.6,432/-
5 Priyoor Mango Trees 2 Rs.94,800/-
6 Cashewnut Trees 2 Rs.14,377/-
7 Pepper Vines 6 Rs.11,575/-
8 -do- 5 Rs.14,388/-
Total Rs.18,32,686/-
It is not disputed that the respondent/Kerala State Electricity Board has given Rs.94,293/- to the petitioners as compensation for yielding trees (Rs.1,01,041 -
Rs.6,748 = Rs.94,293/-). So, the actual amount of compensation in respect of yielding trees in the property of the petitioners due to them is Rs.17,44,393/-."
4. On a reading of paragraph 9 of the judgment, it is not discernible as to how the court below arrived at the figure of `18,32,686/-. The court below appears to have relied on the "Revised Valuation Statement" submitted by the claimants. The C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 4 ::
learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that though the Board was directed to produce the detailed valuation statement, they did not produce the same. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, it is stated that the Board did not seriously dispute the "Revised Valuation Statement" submitted by the claimants. The learned counsel for the Board disputed this. Learned counsel for the Board submitted that the "Revised Valuation Statement" was opposed by the Board and it was stated that the same cannot be accepted at all. Still, the court below relied only on the Revised Valuation Statement submitted by the claimants and granted a very huge amount of `18,32,686/-, without discussing the facts of the case and the manner in which the court arrived at the conclusion. On a fair reading of paragraph 9 of the judgment, no reasonable person would be able to understand as to how the court below fixed the enhanced compensation. A "Revised Valuation Statement" means that a valuation statement was given by somebody and that he revised it. I do not think that the claimants would be entitled to revise a valuation statement of the Board. Ofcourse, they could make their own valuation and submit before Court. But that will not get the characteristics of a Revised Valuation Statement. There is no sanctity as such to such a statement. The claim for enhanced C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 5 ::
compensation is to be established by the claimants and not by the Board. Only on the ground that a Revised Valuation Statement was filed by the claimants, the Court could not, without anything more, accept the same and award an amount of compensation which is more than fifteen times the compensation granted by the Board.
5. As regards diminution of land value, the court below fixed the land value at `2,500/- per cent of land. 40% of the land value was taken as the diminution of land value. The court below granted compensation for diminution of land value for an extent of 2.698 acres of land, without any data for arriving at the extent of land affected by the drawal of the line. In the Commissioner's report it is stated thus:
"(viii) The area coming directly under the electric line and other injuriously affected area are to be separately ascertained.
The area under the electric line is not ascertainable coming directly or indirectly since the line is not yet drawn. The area come directly or indirectly can't be ascertained at present."
C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 6 ::
6. The Commissioner in the report stated that if the line is drawn, there will be diminution of land value by 25%. (The Commissioner has used the expression "depreciation of land value"). However, the court below granted diminution of land value at 40% of the land value.
7. From the Commissioner's report, it is seen that the measurements of the land of the claimants are approximately 1030 feet and about 120 feet. The extent of the property is not shown in the Commissioner's report. On the basis of the measurements given by the Commissioner, it could be seen that the extent of the property of the claimants would be 2.85 acres approximately. For an extent of 2.698 acres of land, the court below granted compensation for diminution of land value. How this figure was arrived at is not known. In spite of the fact that the Commissioner has assessed the diminution at 25%, the court below granted 40%, only on the basis of, probably, the Revised Valuation Statement submitted by the claimants. A sum of `2,69,800/- was granted by the court below as compensation for diminution of land value. Thus, a total compensation of `20,14,193/- was granted by the court below as enhanced compensation.
C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 7 ::
8. It is seen from the Commissioner's report that a tower is installed in the respondents' property. For the area occupied by the tower, compensation has to be separately assessed. But the court below has not assessed the same.
9. The court below fixed the enhanced compensation on insufficient data and scanty materials. The court below erroneously accepted the Revised Valuation Statement submitted by the claimants without any proof as if the Revised Valuation Statement is the last word. The Board filed a two sentence objection without caring to produce the detailed valuation statement and without filing an objection containing all the relevant details.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment passed by the court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below for fresh disposal. Both parties will be entitled to adduce evidence and to produce documents. All the questions involved in the case will be considered afresh and the court below shall pass a C.R.P.NO.153 OF 2008 B :: 8 ::
considered judgment. The parties shall appear before the court below on 10.4.2012.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/